Gen 43:32 They served him (=Joseph) by himself, and them (=the brothers) by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves; for the Egyptians could not dine with the Hebrews, since that would be abhorrent to the Egyptians.

What does Egyptian culture suggest about its attitude toward foreigners?

The King Protects Egypt from Foreigners

In ancient Egypt, the attitude towards foreigners varied depending on context. In the official royal ideology, the foreigner was a symbol of chaos (isfet) and the king had to actively destroy chaos to preserve order (ma’at). In depictions that embody this idea, the king hits foreigners over the head with a mace on the exterior of temple walls. Anyone who had the luxury of being in the presence of the king would see him take part in a kind of sympathetic magic in which foreigners were depicted captive and bound on palatial tiles, footstools, throne bases and the royal dais. Just by sitting on his throne the king was actively crushing images of the foreigner.

Another example, on one pair of king Tutankhamun’s sandals a pair of foreigners, a Levantine and Nubian, were depicted on the inner sole of the shoe. Every step the king took he was trampling his foreign enemies. This idea of royal dominion is best summarized in the ancient Egyptian phrase “every foreign land is under your (the king’s) sandals.”[1]

Foreigners as Animals:
Egyptian Ideology

Elite and probably even non-elite Egyptians would have been aware of the “foreigner as chaos” concept propagated by the king. In this mode, not only was the foreigner insulted in the literature as “vile” or “wretched,” but also in imagery, they were visually interchangeable with animals.

In the decoration on a box from the tomb of king Tutankhamun, the king takes down both foreigners and animals alike with hunting dogs, thus making a visual metaphor that there was little difference between foreigner and animal in Egyptian royal ideology. This internal, royal, Egyptian narrative was assuredly hostile to foreigners. However, at least in the New Kingdom, the king’s actual relationship with foreign countries and foreign kings tells a different story.

Foreign Nations as Brothers: Realpolitik

In the Late Bronze Age, which corresponds with the Egyptian New Kingdom (1550-1077 BCE), Egyptian kings formed close relationships with foreign kings in the Levant.[2] During this time period the most powerful kings around the known world called each other “brother,” and engaged in a system of diplomacy sending relatives to intermarry and delegations bearing lavish exotic gifts.

Such a political parity was necessary to maintain relative regional stability, access to trade routes, and luxury goods. This system was one of mutual reciprocity, where the Egyptian king viewed foreign kings with respect. Surely when the foreign dignitaries arrived with gifts to the Egyptian king, they were treated with dignity, even though the hall of the palace where they were greeted was decorated with images of Levantines and Nubians bound and trampled by the king.

Tribute Images

Egyptologists call the images of gift-giving delegations “tribute images,” and they are found depicted on tomb walls of the ancient Egyptian elite. Such scenes do not indicate any sort of reciprocity on behalf of the Egyptian king, foreigners in these images ask the king for “the breath of life,” an Egyptian concept that foreigners did not believe in. The foreigners from these tomb paintings are shown in the same way the ancient Egyptians are depicted when they bring offerings for tomb owners or the king, except they wear foreign clothing and coiffure and bring exotic, elaborate luxury items. Like the goods being carried, Egyptians would have viewed foreign tribute bearers with awe and interest.[3]

Foreignness as Inferior CultureWhen foreigners were interacting with Egyptians in more ordinary, everyday circumstances, it is likely that they would have been considered somewhat inferior because they were not Egyptian. Being “Egyptian” meant speaking, behaving, dressing, and thinking like an Egyptian. However, outside of the official ideological representation and association with chaos, the foreigner would have likely met with little problems if they chose the path of assimilation.

Assimilation

We know of at least two individuals from the New Kingdom who assimilated successfully: Benja and Heqanefer.[4] In the tomb of Benja, no other evidence besides his name and the time he spent in a royal nursery indicates that he is from the Levant.[5] In his tomb, he is depicted as completely Egyptian, and his parents who might not have even traveled to Egypt, are also represented as Egyptians.

The tomb of Heqanefer is even more intriguing. He is rendered in his own tomb as an Egyptian. However, in the tomb of the Egyptian official Huy, he is depicted as distinctly different from the Egyptians in the tomb.[6] There he is rendered as Nubian through his different skin color, hair, feather, and attire.

These two examples show the distinct wish of those who were upwardly mobile not to be associated with the representations that perpetuated imperialistic propaganda that equated foreigners with chaos. This refusal of foreigners to depict themselves as the “other” is a visual indicator of their rejection of the imposed stereotypes ascribed to foreigners by the Egyptian power structure.

Nebamun and His Respected
Levantine Visiters

The tomb of Nebamun, however, shows a Levantine family visiting the tomb owner in one of the focal walls.[7] The Levantine is seated, a position of honor, and is offered a drink. He and his wife are dressed in elite Levantine attire. The foreign guest wears a white galebeya (a long sleeved gown) with blue edging and a filet adorning his shoulder length hair. His wife wears a flounced four-tiered dress and shawl, and she has her arm around him in an Egyptian pose indicating affection. This demonstrates that elite Egyptians did not necessarily view actual foreigners as embodiments of chaos when those foreigners were of the upper echelon of their own society. If these foreigners were images of chaos they would not have been given pride of place in Nebamun’s tomb.

Status of Foreigners Varies

The way that the Egyptians perceived individual foreigners was likely related to the status of the foreigner. In reality, foreigners contributed to the Egyptian society through a variety of manners, from labor and trade to administrators in the royal bureaucracy. Foreigners could be adopted (a fate echoed in the story of baby Moses) and raised in households of the elite,[8] and Levantine rulers sent their children to be raised in the royal nursery where they would be life-long friends of the king, a political maneuver made by the king to ensure loyalty and influence over foreign kingdoms.[9]

New Kingdom Egypt was a cosmopolitan heterogeneous society where foreigners were enmeshed with the population at all strata’s of society. While the concept of “foreigner” within a royal ideological context was certainly negative, there is proof that individual foreigners did not experience such disdain when interacting with the Egyptian elite. In life, non-Egyptians were likely met with curiosity and apprehensiveness that could eventually turn into friendship and mutual respect.

Dr. Flora Brooke Anthony is a One Year Assistant Professor at Kennesaw State University. She received her Ph.D. in Art History from Emory University, having majored in ancient Egyptian art with a minor in ancient Greek art. She also holds a master’s degree from the Institute of Egyptian Art and Archaeology at the University of Memphis. Her book, Foreigners in Ancient Egypt: Theban Tomb Paintings from the Early Eighteenth Dynastyis forthcoming from Bloomsbury Academic in December 2016.

04/18/16

[1] One such inscription is on a footstool from King Tutankhamun’s tomb. For more on King Tutankhamun’s footstools see Marianne Eaton-Krauss and Walter Segal, The Thrones, Chairs, Stools, and Footstools from the Tomb of Tutankhamun (Oxford: Griffith Institute), 2008.

[2] For more on the complex relationships between the Egyptian king and Near Eastern Kings see Mario Liverani, Prestige and Interest: International Relations in the Near East ca.1600-1100 B.C History of the Ancient Near East (Padova: Sargon), 1990.

[3] For more on ‘tribute’ scenes and representations of foreigners in Egyptian tombs see Flora Anthony, Foreigners in Ancient Egypt: Theban Tomb Paintings from the Early Eighteenth Dynasty (1550-1372 BC), (London: Bloomsbury Academic), 2016.

[4] For more information about the tomb of Heqa Nefer see William Kelly Simpson and N. B. Millet, Heka-Nefer and the Dynastic Material from Toshka and Arminna (New Haven; Philadelphia: Peabody Museum of Natural History of Yale University; University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania), 1963.

[8] Such is the case in Tomb 155. See Torgny S Säve-Söderbergh, Norman de Garis Davies, and Nina M. Davies, Four Eighteenth Dynasty Tombs (Oxford: Printed for the Griffith Institute at the University Press by C. Batey, 1957), 11-21. For a discussion about the Nubian girl in this tomb scene see Flora Anthony, “Paintings of Foreigners in 18th Dynasty Theban Tombs, 1550-1372 BCE.” PhD diss., Emory University, 2014.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in the articles/divrei Torah on this site are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of TABS.

TheTorah.com

A Historical and Contextual Approach TM

Mission

Project TABS (Torah And Biblical Scholarship) is an educational organization founded to energize the Jewish people by integrating the study of the Torah and other Jewish texts with the disciplines and findings of academic scholarship.